Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday June 10, 2012 @11:15AM
from the actually-it's-the-delicious-green-weather dept.

jones_supa writes with this news, straight from The Irish Times: "Rovio, the Finnish company behind Angry Birds, is considering moving its headquarters to Ireland, chief executive Mikael Hed has said. Rovio employs approximately 400 people, mostly in Finland, but Rovio is in contact with IDA Ireland about establishing headquarters here. The reason for the move would be corporation tax rate, which in Finland is 24.5%, while Ireland's rate is 12.5%. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also set up European headquarter operations in Dublin for the same reason. Hed said that if the decision was made to move to Ireland, the company would then decide exactly what elements of its operations would move. 'If we did make that decision then it would be a natural thing to do to have some production [in Ireland] also.'"

Well, the consumer will see the savings... I mean that is what the argument has been.
Except, I dont see the "savings". Hell, when oil goes down on the stock market, it has to be down for 2-3 days before we see the change at the pump.
Trickle down economics in deed...

No consumers will not see savings. Trickle down was never about consumer prices. However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people.

Trickle Downs failure like a lot of political mumbo jumbo is because it is too simplistic model for an advanced system.

Trickle Down is part of a well balanced economy. Too much of it will just hurt because the company will make too much profit and will have less incentive to grow. Thus pocketing the money.Too Little, then the company is forced to pay taxes for services that they don't need and have the government holding them back, because they need to give the poor there "fare share" even though they are not going out on the line risking their money, and working really hard to get where they were.

Like real life you need balance. The more complicated the system the more factors you need to balance and often it is more then left right you need to balance but up down and forward and backwards too...

"However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people."

Assumption. And even if that's what's being said, it's a rationalization. Effective tax rates for corporations are at the lowest they've been for decades. Many industries, like the aforementioned oil industry, are enjoying record profits and sitting on mountains of cash.

And yet job creation is at a standstill. If giving more money to the rich "creates jobs", everyone would be employed by now. They're not.

In all likelihood, the extra profit will sit on the companies books or be doled out to upper management in the form of bonuses and other executive perks. The only "reinvestment" likely to occur is in yet another Ferrari.

Increased profits are typically achieved through restructuring manufacturing to a third world nation or other anti-worker means. If driving down prices at worker's expense was a magic pathway to increased prosperity for all (a rising tide lifts all boats... ) , then Walmart would have achieved this by now. Instead, the rich are getting fabulously richer and the poor and middle class are being systematically destroyed.

It's not surprising. They're going to try to pocket that money they save for themselves alone at least as hard as they're going to try to save it in the first place.

The magic bunny, er I mean invisible hand, of of laissez faire capitalism as espoused by Ayn Rand and Mitt Romney or to speak more precisely Mitt's handlers, puppet masters and soon to be policy makers Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist benefits, as a matter of historical fact, the top 1% as we all know by now:

I am old enough, and I remember having to rush through long-distance (and even local) calls, so they wouldn't end up costing a fortune. That was when Ma Bell was a legal monopoly and didn't have to worry about competition.

I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being broke up too, as well as remembering that prices where i lived (southern Oregon) rose soon afterwards.

Of course they did, a bunch of separate businesses all doing something 'new' that used to be centrally managed, each baby bell had new operating costs. When you multiply overhead, by splitting things up, there's going to be more costs. Simple simple. Of course, how long did that last? Over the LONG term, as other posters point out, prices have crashed through the floor. Splitting a company up is expensive, but if you can think past a few years, it's cheaper in the long run... for consumers... (if anyon

That mechanism is incredibly slow and in most industries could only ever operate on a scale of many years.

And you just can't stand the thought of that first company making any evil profits, even though they were the first to market, and they were the risk-takers who didn't know ahead of time that there would be any profits.

And, yes, for things like heavy industry, it takes a while for competition to get up to speed. That's not a bad thing. It's far better than, for instance, having the government rushing to give out loans to companies that can't compete even with the government handouts, as we've seen several

In Angry Bird-like industries, where they have an actual monopoly on that game and a virtual monopoly on games of similar ilk, the slowness is actually legislated in. Essentially, anywhere there are patents and copyrights slowness tends to be institutionalized.

Some of this is by design. Creators should be able to profit from their work for a while, which is why we have patent / copyright laws.

So there is no capability for the market to operate in these areas, as society has already decided that it should

Some of this is by design. Creators should be able to profit from their work for a while, which is why we have patent / copyright laws.

This is a misconception. Patents don't exist to help inventors profit from their invention. They exist to encourage inventors to reveal the technical brilliance behind their inventions to the rest of society, thus benefiting society at large. That's why they exist. In order to lure the brilliant people at Angry Boids to tip the hand of their overwhelming genius to the eternal benefit of a grateful society, they are offered by the government a time-limited monopoly. Not all inventors opt in, e.g. Google.

Patents are not issued to help inventors make money or profit from their invention. They're issued to further progress in the useful arts and sciences.

It's an important distinction. If the patent system doesn't have the effect of advancing the useful arts and sciences, then the patents should not be issued and the inventor be damned.

This goes to the heart of the software patent debate. Do software patents advance the useful arts and sciences? In fact, they impede them. So they should stop being issued and those issued should be nullified. What about the inventors profiting from their work? That is not the concern of the government or the patent system.

Patents are not issued to help inventors make money or profit from their invention. They're issued to further progress in the useful arts and sciences.

That's nonsense, pretty much quoted from the Constitution, but which even the founding fathers didn't really believe. No other country had such language in their law. Great Britain's patent and copyright laws were strictly revenue oriented from the start (well over 300 years ago).

Most of the greatest works of art, literature, music, and inventions never enjoyed patent or copyright protection until about 200 years ago (far less in most countries), and it was ALWAYS assumed that anything you invented would

It states in the Constitution that the purpose of issuing a patent is "to promote the useful arts and sciences". This is the raison d'etre and is taken quite at face value by judges juries and Congress.

You make the assumption that patents began and end with the US Constitution.Nothing could be further from the truth. Patents predated the constitution by about 300 years.Go read up on the history of patents some time.

I already addressed this fiction in the message you responded to. Do you think with Franklin sitting in on the drafting of the constitution there would be no economic protection for inventions?

Please stop quoting some throw-away text in the constitution as if it were world wide gospel.

I'm a Finnish small business owner, and i can say that the tax caveats at Finland don't stop to the corporation tax rate.There's also VAT which is 23% which limits direct consumer customers heavily on the European market, nevermind all the taxes when you employ someone which are quite heavy, mostly in form of hidden taxes etc.

Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?

That would entice, I would think, all kinds of businesses to want to come or stay in the US. No tax at all...BUT, also, get rid of most incentives, etc...since they'd not need these to play the numbers games to shuffle money and write offs to offset taxes charged?

Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?

It's a silly argument.

All taxes are ultimately passed to the consumer. Personal income tax, too - since the company has to pay higher to its employees to entice them to work for it, and of course it also needs to raise prices for compensate. Ditto for sales and property taxes, since they affect the cost of living, and therefore indirectly how much people will ask in wages.

At the same time, you could similarly argue that taxes are "passed on to the corporations" - if I'm taxed higher, I'll ask for a bigger wage.

The truth it, taxes aren't "passed on to" anyone. They are simply extracted from the economy. Both companies and physical persons are actors in that economy, so both pay.

This argument works in all-encompassing single market economy. It utterly fails when people receiving more then the rest simply do what people in the OP are thinking of doing - pulling their profits out of the country and out of the country's economy.

Then taxes start to function as the only way to keep the money in the economy.

What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?

We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.

None of this would have been possible without a government paid for by taxes.

The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy. You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?

It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.

"It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves." -> I am far from wealthy, and yet am libertarian. I spent years perusing the various ideologies offered by, well, everyone; with each of them, I perform a test to see if what they were selling was true. Granted, it is a painstaking endeavor, as you have to actually read the treatises and materials from these ideologies, which for the lesser of minds can be quite frightening and true objectivity is something difficult to measure. However, it is well worth it all, as you acquire first-hand knowledge of where the faults of each ideology actually lies, as well as an encyclopedic amount of information on disinformation. The amount of lies out there that each ideology promotes about the others is greater than the stars in the sky. I am thoroughly convinced that the problem with humanity isn't humanity itself, but the languages used; they are...heavily context-based, and invite a certain amount of imprecision inadequate to storing knowledge / wisdom past a certain level.

How did you come to choose your ideology (if you have one)? Have you performed experiments to see if what you believe is actually true, or do you simply accept it as self-evident? Are you willing to throw the entire ideology out if it's proven false, or would you attempt to modify your beliefs / explain away the erroneous data? At what point do you say "Enough"? Do you believe it's important to have an ideology even if it's a broken / imperfect one? Are you okay with one that works in 90% of all cases, or do you slave away in your mental workshop until it covers 100% of all cases?

It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves.

No, people become Republican after they become rich, and suddenly believe they got where they are because they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and had no help from others, no privileges of birth, and no other contributing special circumstances, They honestly believe that the most valuable members of society are people who can succeed just by putting in extra effort, and therefore deserve extra protections and rights. They tend to see public corruption as a greater evil than private corruption.

People become Libertarian when they believe the liberal philosophy (in a classic sense) they were taught, and lack either the life experience or practical knowledge that in a vacuum people will be ruthlessly selfish rather than act towards the common good. The only way someone who is rich becomes Libertarian is if they can't stomach the social policy of the GOP (which is tailored to attract the religious social right). They tend to see both public and private corruption as evil, but seem to think natural laws will overcome that.

For completeness sake, people become Democratic when they have faith in the system of checks-and-balances and believe in the common good, without realizing that what will happen is half your money will go to the rich (because they'll get it anyway) and the other half will go to the poor (because of your social programs) and you in the middle will just be paying higher costs for everything. They tend to see private corruption as a greater evil than public corruption.

It also depends somewhat on what your life goals are and how you define success or happiness, but that's how I see it.

North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.

If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth. If your government allows you to have wealth then you can have wealth.

Now you can say "oh well I just won't live in a region without a government. Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.

Someone is going to determine the rules by which you 'play the game'. If you don't setup a government of sufficient strength then someone else will impose their rules on you--and you might not get to participate in its decision making process so it behooves you to establish a sufficiently powerful organization that you can control. In our case the government is "of the people" therefore we are self governed. Therefore all wealth comes from "The People". It's a fine line between this distinction and circular logic but ultimately all wealth comes from the government (which establishes the rules by which property ownership is determined) and all government derives its power from various source. If that's the military then ultimately all wealth is from the military. If it's from the people then all wealth is ultimately from the people but sanctioned by their manifestation of will which is the government.

Now the fox news paranoid survivalist says "ahh but I have GOLD! The government can't control bartering of gold!" Sure. But the government is sufficiently powerful to take said Gold from you. So the fact that the government doesn't use its power to take your gold by force isn't thanks to your impressive weapons collection (however much you have isn't enough to stop a navy seal team) it's thanks to the governments lack of *desire* to take your gold.

ALL wealth comes from the government because the freedom to live ultimately is held by the most powerful organization in the land. And the most powerful organization in the land is your defacto government. The Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan isn't the "Government" but seeing as it controls the territory and is capable of writing the rules by which those living in the territory will behave it's the "Government".

The libertarian who thinks the government hasn't done anything for him is ignoring the fact that the government is protecting the libertarian rule-set. It could just as easily use that power to say that nobody can own anything and the state has absolute power.

So participate in your government and ensure it's the most powerful force in the land--so that it's actually the government and not a proxy for another interest but also participate so that it's acting as a proxy for the people who give it authority.

North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.

No, its the perfect example of why its horrifying that people think we want a government that is responsible for the creation of all wealth.

If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth.

No, you have a tyranny, and its time to maybe think about doing something about that.

Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.

Perhaps you should adjust your point to something like "government is responsible for making sure you can generate your own wealth, and keep it in peace." Its most certainly NOT their role to dole out your wages, food, and whatnot. The twentieth century has been a testament to why tha

Various sources (e.g. taxes, tarifs and debt, for starters). But going back to the parent posting (which I'm surprised why it was modded down, unless the realities of society are too much truth for some to handle), wealth wouldn't be created without a fairly stable society to provide the education, protection and regulatory stability needed to provide a framework for the growth of capital. Anyone wanting to disagree can watch what capital remains now vaporizes in 20 years as our crumbling education system,

State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.

When governments (collective entities) try to act like businesses (competitive entities) it seldom works out. Usually only a few who are able to take advantage of the situation benefit.

I would respectfully disagree. In certain cases, such as some of new automobile manufacturing facilities (Volkswagen in Chattanooga, TN, Kia in Georgia, etc.) they aren't causing a plant to move from one state to another, but encouraging the building of a new facility that wasn't previously existing in the US. Now, the potential argument could be that if they didn't build it in one state, they would simply build it in another, thus you wouldn't have a net increase overall, as it would be built regardless. However, the counterargument to the previous statement is that competition between states is providing a more attractive locale to building a manufacturing facility overall. Frankly, I'd rather have them say, "which state" than "which country." End result being more jobs for Americans.

Jobs for Americans mean nothing if it's not a job for you and your friends. The US has added something like 2-3 million jobs in the last 3 years, but unless you go to the towns where those jobs were added, most people will say that there are no jobs to be had.

I'm glad you brought up automotive plants because there's a perfect example going on right now in that sector.

Chrysler is trying to close down plants in the steel belt and build new ones in South Carolina. South Carolina doesn't put them in a better position for acquiring materials, and it doesn't put them in a better place for delivering their product to the consumer. The reasons for the move are simple: 1) lower business taxes, fees, etc. 2) it lets GM break out of existing labor contracts with expensive tenured employees, replacing them with cheaper new-hires.

Another problem with your choice of example: those overseas manufacturers creating plants here for the US market are actually just brining back jobs we lost to them in the past as Americans started favoring foreign cars over domestic.

Just another race to the bottom. Corporations are going to end up tax-exempt and we're all going to end up living in a Neo-Feudalistic society where instead of an aristocracy we've got C-levels and their retinues while national governments sputter out with less and less tax revenue coming in and become more and more irrelevant.

The saddest thing in all of this is, though, that there will be a sizable number of middle- and lower-class people out there cheering the shit, even as their own well-being is threatened directly by it. When you've got people in trailer parks arguing that taxes do nothing but punish success and cheering on the dismantling of the social programs they're actively using (such as Medicaid, welfare, public schools), you know that we're fucking doomed...

The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants, who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for. Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period. They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive. And as nice as that sounds, it does nobody any good, other than career politicians who increase the public benefits and rais

Hard to keep tabs on government when the lazy and the idiots keep electing people like Reid, Pilossi, GWB, Obama, and Santorum.

Taxes for infrastructure is such a small number, that I think most people would be willing and happy to pay them, and we already do (fuel taxes etc). I don't have a problem for government doing what private sector cannot, like infrastructure and a standing army. I oppose taxes for social engineering and feel good/do good liberal causes. There was a recent study that showed that of the government programs designed to help people get jobs, the only real jobs those programs actually helped with were for the people running the programs. However it is impossible to cut those worthless programs off, because some liberal somewhere will claim that "the evil _____ doesn't want people to get jobs", so we are left with worthless programs that don't actually do anything. It would be better and easier and less expensive to just give the money to people who needed it.

Government is supposed to be of the people, for the people and by the people. It is supposed to be the glue for society, not fix all societal ills.

Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles. We heavily subsidize the costs of our auto-infrastructure through general taxes. We do this because if people paid the real cost of gasoline we would be alarmed and outraged --demanding we lower the price of gasoline.

Gas taxes are also extremely regressive. If you are min wage and need to drive to McDonalds you pay the same or more than the yuppie who drives their Prius to Apple every day. If anything the person picking up a $150k a year check is benefiting *more* from the road access than the McDonalds worker since every mile they drive gets a substantially higher return on investment.

Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles. We heavily subsidize the costs of our auto-infrastructure through general taxes.

Gas taxes are a huge fraction of the cost of the infrastructure for automobiles, perhaps exceeding 100%. We heavily subsidize the cost of our trucking infrastructure through automobile gas taxes and general taxes. The average automobile doesn't weigh enough to put any significant wear on most of our roads. Almost all the damage to roads, and hence t

The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants, who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for.

I wholly agree with you in that people who don't work shouldn't get such a large share (if any) of the fruits of labour. This, however rises a question: why do you oppose corporate taxes? It's taxing money going to shareholders, who didn't lift a finger to earn it.

Government cannot create private sector jobs.

Of course it can. For example, in Finland the government pays for education up to and including university level, so the fact that Rovio was able to hire competent people is entirely due to public investment.

Period.

Saying "period" doesn't actually give your argument any extra weight.

They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.

Well, I'd be happy to stop bailing out the banks over and over again, but then we'd need a heavily regulated institution for handling money transfers. Since the regulations would limit risk, they'd also limit profit potential, so the whole thing would probably need to be government-backed.

Anyone that has 20 years (or more) of elected office, cannot run or hold any elected office, ever. By eliminating career politicians, perhaps we might start looking at statesmen for public elected office.

Or, more likely, you'd end up with politicians even more beholden to corporations, since they'd know that their future depend on earning a retirement position.

Taxes are regressive, and politicians use them to curry favor and pay out benefits to keep getting elected.

Creation of infrastructure is a net producer of jobs. For example a highway connecting two cities increases the wealth of both cities for decades after, due to the increased efficiencies of trade. This is a well known and studied phenomenon.

"Government cannot create private sector jobs" is a meme from the republican party. Initially it was "Governments cannot create jobs" [Senator Shelby, Republican, 2010] . When people pointed out the absolute falsehood of that statement, particularly during recessionary times, the GOP went back to the drawing board and reissued it in its current version. It is still false, but as all memes, that doesn't stop it from being passed on.

They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.

Ummm, yes that is something government can do. For example it can take money from a productive 40 something worker and give it to an unproductive 18 year old student and subsidize their education so that some day they too can be a productive 40 something worker paying for an unproductive 18 year old student... and so on and so forth.

Also it can rebalance out of scale productivity compensation. If one employee is twice as productive as another but getting paid 1,000 times as much then the scale of productivity is out of whack and it makes sense to try and correct a legal system that evidently has an inefficient glitch in it which is over-rewarding players for only marginal success.

Also it can stabilize economies by acting as insurance. If my house burns down and I have insurance then the 'productive' policy holders whose houses are still standing are paying into my costly home replacement. But by sharing risk it becomes affordable. Without that insurance *everybody* would need $200k-$400k saved up for the possibility of their house burning down and needing to be replaced. If everybody did this then everybody would be wasting money that would be sitting uselessly idle. Instead we spend a fraction on insurance in case we need it.

This is how taxing productive employed members of society helps the economy. If getting layed off results in economic strife then everybody starts saving unnecessarily even though the chance of being laid off are maybe 1 in 20 (but everybody has to prepare for that possibility and everybody starts spending less). With less demand more people get laid off and a downward spiral begins. If however you provide good unemployment benefits then those who are employed can have confidence in their job and continue to spend regularly knowing that they don't need to switch over into potential survival mode. This keeps more people employed and doesn't add costs to those who aren't actually at risk of being laid off.

Bullshit. The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health spent billions on cancer research -- which included half the funding for research in molecular biology. As a result, they reduced the cancer death rate by about 25% since 1960. And they made a lot of money and created jobs. They generously (or foolishly, depending on your perspective) handed the results over to pharmaceutical companies to make further billions. And they created jobs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, chemists, etc.

Social programs to help those that, as you claim, are fully incapable of supporting themselves, is such a small number of people. Your argument is lost on me when you start looking at all the people gaming the system because they are in fact lazy and do not want to work. I know plenty of people who are on government welfare of one kind or another who could be working but instead are not.

Even those people who cannot work at "capacity" can do something, and requiring that they do nothing instead is insane. Le

The real issue with states giving tax breaks to entice companies to move there isn't simply them "stealing jobs from other states rather than creating them".The reason such measures usually fail is a state's failure to demand specific goals as part of the deal.

Time and time again, companies took advantage of huge tax breaks only to plunk down some sort of office or warehouse that doesn't actually hire more than a few dozen employees. That, or they may only stay as long as the tax break continues, uprooting the whole operation after the 3 or 5 year deal ends.

IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with state trying to encourage businesses to set up shop within their borders. Even though we're a group of 50 United States, each one still competes with each other internally, much like corporations with multiple divisions often operate each division so it competes with the others.

The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties. (Most likely, corrupt politicians simply don't care, because they're getting some kind of kickback or garnering support they need by making the deals happen, at any cost to the citizenry of the state.) Any such arrangement should include contingencies, such as "You will lose the tax break AND owe back taxes from the time you moved here if you don't consistently keep X number of people employed, at wages no less than $Y per year." and "Moving out of the state for a period of 10 years from the time this tax break expires constitutes breach of contract, and again, is subject to back taxes."

A company who genuinely has a desire to move to the state (with a belief it really benefits them in the long-haul) would still gladly accept such an arrangement, IMO. The ones who complain it's too restrictive were likely just trying to milk the system to the state's detriment anyway.

The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties.

No, that's not the real problem, either. The problem is that they are, as you put it, deals. Instead of having a set of tax rules that are applied uniformly to everyone, some companies get special deals. Since those deals are done at the discretion of some politician or appointee, the politician is given more power to toss tax breaks and unfair advantage to his/her friends or people that will contribute the most money/votes to his/her re-election. The deal is beneficial for both parties -- the politician and the company. Like much of modern politics, it is all about amassing power to take money from one group of people and give it to another, rather than benefiting society overall. How many times have you heard that small companies are the real job creators? How many times have you heard of these deals going to small companies?

And these are the "job creators" we're supposed to bend over for and throw money at for the privilege of working for them (which obviously generates them more revenue then it costs otherwise the job wouldn't exist in the first place)? America! Fuck Yeah!!

The funny thing is that the low tax rates for some is the reason why Ireland had a deficit crisis [irishexaminer.com].

And ironically it is then those countries that they are trying to undercut that needs to bail them out.

The problem with a lot of corporations is that they are narrow minded. They want to have a healthy and educated workforce. Companies like Rovio have benefit by being situated in a country where (I presume is like the average European country) where good education and healthcare is quite accessible. And the fact that is very accessible and like in this country is not because those things are heavily privatized.

U.S. States that are currently a hub/center for some particular industry were not alway so. American history is full of migrations from one state to another to follow jobs. Why is it all of sudden wrong to do so?

I am not sure your tragedy of the commons argument applies here. Some state governments have become terribly inefficient and somewhat parasitic of their traditional industries, California may be an example. Why should some company or industry be forced to stay put to prop up such a mismanaged local government? Implicit in your argument is the "all other things being equal" caveat, but things are not equal. Some states will have an inherent advantage due to access to transportation and distribution systems, access to natural resources, access to energy sources, access to a trained work force, access to universities, an appealing climate, etc.

Good government seems to rely on a system of checks and balances. I think we need to have company mobility to some degree as a check/balance against the mismanagement of local government. A lack of competition between states may be just as bad as too much competition.

Finland's taxes are high, but then again by most measures it is a country that uses those taxes to fund a very comprehensive social benefits system.

Ireland, on the other hand, is a basket case economy that became attractive in no small part by funding its low corporate taxes by irresponsible borrowing, which now means the rest of the Eurozone has to bail it out.

By most American measures, Finland is an overtaxed Socialist wasteland, and Ireland's low corporate rates make it a responsible government.

Why tax corporate profits in the first place? Their taxed when they become someone's income. Wouldn't it be fairer, cost less in administration and drastically reduce the number of tax games people waste resources on playing, if corporate taxes and labour taxes were abolished, and if the tax on all kinds of income and capital gains was equalized at a level which raises the same revenue? There's been a big public argument here (the UK) over the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%....but most people seem to remain unaware that salary is one of the most highly taxed forms of income, and that those who can manipulate how they receive their income or can receive it through dividends, royalties or capital gains can do much more than that to reduce their tax burden.

You need to go back to the goals of the EU common agricultural policy. It was created out of a very simple observation: on the whole, the EU did not product enough food for its own needs, and was therefore dependent on the external market. The CAP was made to make farming more attractive, and thus increase production. France has a large agricultural sector, so it effectively leeches more funds than other states, just as Spain or Portugal. Development of the industrial sector is quite irrelevant.

NOPE.these deals also include allowing the company to keep what would normally be given to the state as 'state taxes on earnings' to add to their profits. while thankfully right now allowing it to be considered 'payed taxes for the wage earner'.I don't expect that last part to last very long.

But a company only needs a few employees in the tax haven, then it will move most of it's income there. Suddenly you have a corporation making a ton of money that is paying little taxes and employing a few part-time workers. Sure it's better then nothing, but it won't let you run a country.

Every store I go in to seems to have Angry Birds figures, cereal, watches, and adult toys. They are all made in China already. Why not just finish it off and move the whole company over their if that is their top brand?

This is an example of a benefit that only goes to corporations and the very rich, one not available to us regular suckers.

I wish I could simply declare that I live in Florida or some other state with no income tax, and still keep my same job/income/benefits/lifestyle, but I can't. But society has decided that it's OK to allow corporations to do exactly this.

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave. For what? A 10% reduction on taxes on profits? Currently, Rovio has a net income of 48 million Euros according to Wikipedia (for how long is anybody's guess, Angry Birds won't stay popular forever and that's the only game for modern phones that they have, the rest appears to be old J2ME games, none of which gained any real popularity), so that means saving about 4 million euros in taxes, while at the same time dealing with both a perception of greed which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers as well as the costs associated with moving the operation to Ireland.

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.

The counter point to this is that as long as what they do is legal, then they should be free to do it - implying that they have a moral obligation ("when it's their turn to pay") does't really cut it. I'm sure that they have thought about how this will be perceived as a dick move (albeit probably briefly), yet they are still choosing to do so.But how do you stop people from following their own self interest without resorting to stringent or totalitarian-like restrictions?

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.

Please, what system? Workers are mobile inside Europe. Social security and welfare is more or less equal inside Europe as well.

so that means saving about 4 million euros in taxes, while at the same time dealing with both a perception of greed which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers as well as the costs associated with moving the operation to Ireland.

Their workers will probably make up for the 4Mi to the Irish government since income tax is higher on Ireland. Still"perception of greed" yes, sorry, it's a crime to be profitable, I forgot."which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers" yeah, right"costs associated" I'm not sure, they certainly can move some of production to Ireland, but maybe if it's done slowly it's not

They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.

Please, what system? Workers are mobile inside Europe.

No, they're not. Inside the European union (which I'm sure is what you meant), while you have the right to move around and work as you wish, most people don't do it and don't want to. In practice there's language barries and cultural barries all over the place.

Social security and welfare is more or less equal inside Europe as well.

Absolutely not. You can start by looking at one article in wikipedia [wikipedia.org] where it is immediately apparent that countries are running their own systems, with substantial differences in rules and rates. The Nordic countries (such as Finland) are generally i

LOTR actually have some relevance to Finland as Tolkien essentially picked Waelish worlds and mutilated them with Finnish grammar to create the elven language.

The Tolkien conspiracy goes deeper... apparently much of Tolkien's mythology has been borrowed from Finnish mythology, and is, for instance, the origin of the character Gandalf. I'll let the reader decide what familiar continent is seen when s/he holds Tolkien's map of Middle-Earth up to a mirror.

It's not Gaelic but Finnish. The pronounciation of Finnish is actually massively more regular than English, and you can easily learn it (although learning to understand Finnish is a different deal.) Here's the approximate pronounciations of those family names in the Wikipedia spelling key [wikipedia.org] with approx. translations:

The EU is very fond of harmonising the pain to its citizens. It should have a minimum corporate tax rate to ensure that companies pay their dues...

The headline rate might be 12.5%, compared to that of 33.3% for France for example which has complained for a long time about the headline rate; but in reality the effective rate in France can be as low as 8.2% which they actively advertise [invest-in-france.org] here [invest-in-france.org].

References can be found here [ronanlyons.com] (second graph), here [aeaweb.org], and here [fixmytax.com].

What brought down Ireland, and will bring down Spain and the rest of the PIIGS is the private banking debt owed to non-indigenous investors/wholesale banks & the ECB [wikipedia.org] that their taxpayers are being

I'm on the fence about corporate tax, because I consider it triple dipping. After all, people buying Rovio's products are spending their post-tax income. Rovio's employees pay income tax. Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ? Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).

On the other hand, I loathe any modern corporation that amasses vast amounts of wealth and doesn't create jobs to spend it. We see far too much of this happening

Corporations have many of the same rights as citizens. Why shouldn't they have some of the obligations?

You say your government does nothing of value with the taxes it collects. Do you ever use the health care system, the legal system, the education system or the transportation system? Those are paid for mostly by taxes at various levels. Most research in Canada is funded from taxes, because the corporations won't. The government does a lot of things with my money that I don't like, but in the main, th

Come to the US and buy some congresscritters. Ask GE and the lot..hell.. if you play the game right theyll pay you to be here and even give your employees revolving jobs in the administration making laws for yourself.

Fire 400 workers, move headquarters, save what 4-6 mil? get new workers, new office space, move all your shit, dwindle savings down to about 1 mil then watch your one and only hit fasty fade away into fad history

sounds like a bunch of effort for little reward, and honestly your a 1 hit wonder, there is no long term benefit

like so many others, another asshole who just wants to take and not to give. For the likes of him there should be an island where there are no taxes and consequently nothing what is made possible by taxes - just a bunch of other greedy assholes who all want to get richer by taking the money of the others.

Ireland is widely considered to be in the same boat as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. They'll need to balance their budget at some point, and I wouldn't bet on the corporate tax rate to stay this low when they do.

As others have mentioned, the 12.5% isn't even the best rate around. Moving to Ireland is more generally about the Double Irish [wikipedia.org] whereby you form two companies in Ireland, one based in a true tax haven like the Caymans. Ireland then lets the company in the tax haven not pay Irish taxes, so it sells "IP" to the other company at whatever price they want (no transfer pricing rules), so while one company banks all the revenue, it pays just about everything over to the shell "IP" company where it is basically all untaxed profit. In practice this means the company chooses it's real tax rate in Ireland by deciding how much of it's revenues it doesn't ship out to the tax haven.

While Antartica has the lowest tax rate they have not signed any tax treates, so the local goverment could charge full taxes.

That being siad, I don't like corporate taxes for interantional companies. There are too many source (where is the corporation located) / residence (where is the corporation making money) issues, they are easy to game, etc.

I think the world would be a better place if more of the corporate taxes were shifted to a source only method. USA would get a cut of the corporate profits when I b

This is where a world government would make sense. then you would have a flat tax no matter 'where' the company is set up. they can set up where ever they want to get the best workforce, not to just get the best rate depriving people of jobs in some cases.

The corporations would counter by merging into a single huge company, with no wealth transfers and no taxes. A better solution is to tax all income where it's made, with all forms of income (pay, capital gains...) taxed at the same rate.

For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.

Don't bet on it yet. The government sponsored benefits in Finland are much better than in Ireland. If management (and possibly staff) move to Ireland with their families they'll be giving up things they take for granted at the moment. This could result in higher salaries and benefit costs. It may not rise to the 12.5% they'll be saving on corporate taxes on profits, but it will surely eat into it... and affect their quality of life.

That does not work this way. They will not move, they will create a subsidary in Ireland (a "ghost company").

The Finnish company will sell Angry Birds and whatever they produce to the Irish ghost company, to the point of getting no profits (or even getting loses, if that gives them any advantage). The Irish ghost will then resell to the real customers, getting a tax cut.

Meanwhile the management of the company keeps enjoying finish welfare, at the expenses of their compatriotes.

There is no reason the US cannot provide the same level of benefits except for political bickering and the close to 2 billion *per day* the US spends on its military.

Canada can afford to do all this with a piss-poor military. With a population of just over 30 million, Canada's military is so small that it's barely adequate to protect one quarter of their territory. The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

Finland, the subject of this Slashdot post, offers some evidence against this common claim. For decades Finland refused to joined NATO, managing its own defense. Nonetheless, it has built a welfare state comparable to its Nordic neighbours while at the same time maintaining one of the stronger armies in the world.

I don't know where you live, but Finland is not the same as the US. Like in all Nordic countries, the taxes are actually used for something other than military ventures - namely providing education and healthcare for everyone and a stable society with functioning infrastructure. The authors of Angry Birds have benefited from free education at the Helsinki University of Technology, free healthcare all their lives, etc.Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

That's only reasonable when your view of the future reaches beyond the quarterly results your bonuses depend on.
Caring for the educating your future employees and consumers is not part of the Anglo-Saxon company moral.